Dismissed

Sonu Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Jharkhand HC22 Mar 2023A.B.A./1308/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Jharkhand rejected the petitioner's application for anticipatory bail in a theft case involving the cutting of an electricity tower. The court found materials showing direct involvement and ruled that recovery from the vehicle drove the decision to deny bail.

What did the court decide?

The application for anticipation bail is rejected; the petitioner is directed to surrender within four weeks to pray for regular bail before the Court below.

Sonu Ansari Vs the State of Jharkhand — Bail and Remand | Jharkhand HC (2023)

¶1

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

¶2

A.B.A. No. 1308 of 2023

¶3

Sonu Ansari	------ ....	....	….	Petitioner
	Versus
The State of Jharkhand		....	....	....Opposite Party

¶4

------

¶5

Coram: HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA

¶6

-----For the Petitioner : Mr. Sourabh Kr. Das, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanat Kr. Jha, Addl.P.P ------

¶7

Order No. 03 Dated- 22.03.2023

¶8

Heard learned counsel for the parties.

¶9

Apprehending his arrest in connection with Kuru P.S. Case No. 51 of 2021 instituted under Sections 414 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, the petitioner has moved this Court for grant of privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶10

As per prosecution case is that on 28.04.2021 at about 22.30 Hours in night informant and other police personnel were in the night patrolling duty and on 29.04.2021 at 00:05 Hours at night informant got a secret information that at Village Chadra Itra some miscreants are engaged in cutting of a Electricity Tower for stealing the iron and to verify the same informant and other police reached there at about 1.00 AM. On seeing the police, miscreants fled away from there. From place of occurrence a truck vide registration No.JH071-4234 was found loaded with iron and aluminum wire and also found ring rinch, cutter, hexa blade frame and blade in a bag.

¶11

Learned counsel for the petitioner has submitted that petitioner is innocent and has committed no offence at all rather he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is also submitted that petitioner is neither driver nor owner of the said vehicle nor he was present at the place of occurrence. Hence, it is submitted that the petitioner may be extended the privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶12

Learned Addl.P.P appearing for the State opposes the prayer for anticipatory bail of the petitioner and submitted

¶13

-2-

¶14

that there is recovery from the truck and the petitioner is driver of the seized vehicle, hence, he does not deserve privilege of anticipatory bail.

¶15

Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances and materials showing direct involvement of the petitioner in the alleged offence of theft, I am not inclined to extend the privilege of anticipatory bail to the petitioner, which stands rejected.

¶16

Petitioner is directed to surrender before the court below within four weeks and pray for regular bail, the learned court below shall consider the same on its own merits, without being prejudiced by this order.

¶17

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

¶18

R.S./-

Sonu Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonu Ansari v. the State of Jharkhand

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Om Prakash Vishwakarma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Nawal Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand

Yashraj Sharma Vs the State of Jharkhand

Samim Akhtar Vs the State of Jharkhand

Pawan Mahto Vs the State of Jharkhand

Vinay Kumar Yadav Vs the State of Jharkhand